submit_issue

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is for submitting new issues, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether submissions are public or private, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a mutation tool (submitting new issues) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover important aspects like what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly in a workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage nuances). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Submit a new issue to the BLT system' with specific examples of what to report ('bugs, vulnerabilities, or other issues'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_comment' or 'update_issue_status' by focusing on creation rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool ('to report bugs, vulnerabilities, or other issues'), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to choose alternatives like 'add_comment' for existing issues. The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria or direct sibling comparisons.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.